By David MacLeod​​Today I’m blogging about Conservative political patronage within the Veterans Review and Appeal Board – this is important to all Canadians because Federal Tribunals and Boards regulate many aspects of our lives.

The Veteran Review and Appeal Board is the “gateway” to veteran benefits and services. At any time, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board consists of 20-40 patronage appointees, 80-100 support staff, and costs the Canadian taxpayer approximately $11 Million per year.

We know from the Parliamentary Committee, the Office of the Veteran Ombudsman, and my own research, that Veterans Review and Appeal Board is unfairly denying access to benefits and services to veterans and their families.

The Canadian taxpayer is paying for a federal tribunal that:

Trivializes medical evidence and professionals,

Continuously errs in procedural fairness.

Board members’ bias runs rampant and

Ignores law. An example is the unequal application of Sections 3 and 39 of the Act.

Nine years ago the Conservative Party of Canada promised veterans better access to benefits and services. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not met that promise. In fact, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, with its 20-40 patronage appointments, continue to fail veterans by delaying or denying claims.

I’ve attached a Conservative Party of Canada “Backgrounder” dated Dec 28, 2005. On page six, the Conservative Party of Canada rightfully hammers the Liberal Party for its use of patronage appointments and clearly blames the failures of the Board on patronage.

The Backgrounder reads:

“We will fix the Veterans Review and Appeal Board – which has been tainted by Liberal patronage – by appointing qualified medical, military and veteran members who are capable of adjudicating appeals on an informed basis rather than a political basis.”

​The Conservative Party of Canada is aware that patronage is undermining veterans. Yet, the practice of patronage is perpetuated. In fact, during the Duffy Trial it was brought to light that Senators are used to secure patronage positions for Conservative supporters.

Veteran Review and Appeal Board faces a crisis of credibility when Minster O’Toole continues to use patronage to reappoint Board Members known to have a bias against disabled veterans and the generous nature of the legislation.The Conservatives have no intention of changing Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Instead, Minister O’Toole has stated that Veteran Affairs will now use a Rapid Evidence-Based Adjudication process. Essentially this is the same process the Liberal’s used over 10 years ago. Either the Minister is admitting the Liberals were right or he protecting 20-40 patronage appointments. In either case there is no substantial change to Veterans Review and Appeal Board adjudications, trainers, or operations.Patronage continues to undermine veterans and their families by denying and delaying access to benefits or services. ​We have blogged about this ​before. To prove this point, I suggest you read about two widows – Dawn Collins and Natasha Mohr– these two ladies have been denied benefits and services they are entitled to.

I encourage these widows to tell their story;

I encourage ALL veterans to rally to the aid of widows and children;

I encourage the all politicians to listen and learn,

But most of all, I encourage the Canadian public to support these ladies.

In closing, I’ll return to the beginning:Veterans’ issues are the litmus test for the rest of society. Veterans are fighting for the very things that the average Canadian is concerned about: access to pensions, healthcare, the application and the rule of law. What can be taken from veterans can be taken from the public in general.

​By Harold Leduc​Veteran Watch continues to provide a summary of our policy report cards on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you. Today, Veteran Watch examines theConservative PartyDoes the proposal fall inline with the spirit of parity of the recently re-affirmed social covenant? It does in part. The Conservative Party policy is found in court documents, media stories, legislative amendments, etc… Despite having nine years to make good on 2005 election promises they’ve only recently made modest policy changes following mounting public criticism. They’ve made no commitment to treat all military veterans and their families equally or to deal with outstanding issues.

Does the proposed policy meet veterans and their families needs?In a small way. The Conservative Party has only recently begun to make modest positive changes to benefits. Recently established programs and benefits meet the needs of a minority of veterans and their families assessed at a 70% or higher disability, ignoring the gaps left for the majority.

Is a return to the Pension Act contemplated?No. Despite it being the most controversial part of the NVC, the Conservative Party was the first to promise a bundling of taxable benefits into a pension. That pension combined with the lump sum will not replace nor come close in compensation to the life long monthly tax free disability benefit available under the Pension Act.

Not returning to the Pension Act denies benefits for spouses, widows/widowers and families.

Does the proposal address the difficulties veterans have in accessing benefits?No. Despite report recommendations the Conservative Party has not committed to addressing the denial culture at VRAB or within the Department.

Does the proposal acknowledge current court actions against veterans?Somewhat. They’ve conceded to a parliament wide re-affirmation of the social covenant between the people and government of Canada and citizens who serve their country in the military and their families. They’ve also agreed to drop their appeal of the lawsuit.

SummaryBased on the available information, the Conservative Party policy lacks promise and disrespects the recently re-affirmed social covenant, especially since they’ve proven time and again that they will not meet their obligations to veterans and their families unless there is public protest.

NOTE: Colours fill the boxes next to each question. Green indicates a positive response that will likely meet the full needs of veterans. Yellow indicates a somewhat positive policy but one that fails to meet the full requirement. Red is a complete failure to meet the needs of veterans. Colours that fade from green to yellow indicate an initial positive response but one that may require more research or clarification. Colours that fade from yellow to red indicate some redeeming factors within policy but one that might end in failure.

What do the Liberal Prom​ises on Veteran Benefits and Military Truly Mean?

​By Tom Hoppe​In any election all candidates make promises to win votes. Citizens should not take these election promises to lightly and ask the candidates how they will achieve what they promise. I have seen in most cases a person, or in this case a political party past behaviour will usually dictate their future behaviour, and two items I have heard from the Liberals leads to some questions.

First the announcement by the Liberal leader that if elected he would bring back the monthly pension for injured veterans. I question what Justin means by that statement because under the financial component of the current New Veterans Charter (NVC) an injured veteran who receives a lump sum can request to have the lump sum paid out over monthly payments. Sounds like a great plan, but for most veterans who receive a lump sum around $30-$50,000 mark a lifelong monthly pension would be very small compared to the Pension Act which provided a lifelong pension not a lump sum. The problem that I have seen with the misunderstanding around the monthly pension issue is that people have compared the Pension Act which is a financial component, to the entire NVC which is a transitional legislation. When in reality the Pension Act should only be compared to section 3 (Financial Component) of the NVC; so I ask Justin will he bring back the Pension Act, or only carry on what is already available to veterans under the NVC?

The second question I have for Justin is a statement of pulling our troops out of operations overseas and sending them as trainers. In the past governments will change the terminology of operations to give the perception to the public there is no requirement to properly equip or send proper resources to support the troops.

I remember my overseas tour in Bosnia on what the Liberal government at the time called a peacekeeping mission. While the rest of Canada thought Canadian soldiers were on a peacekeeping mission the reality was many Canadian soldiers were involved in engagements with opposing forces most notably the Princess Patricia Canadian Light infantry who were involved in one of the biggest battles in Croatia since Korean war. During the first few years of the Balkan conflict more than 20 Canadian service members died and hundreds more were wounded. I remember being sent to the Balkans without even a proper helmet or flack vest, the rules of engagement were not suited for the situation and there was limited or no medical air evacuation. Even towards the end of my tour we were told orders from Ottawa had directed that portions of the forward surgical hospital would be closing because we were on a so-called peacekeeping mission with a low threat level. A few weeks before the changes to the hospital were to take place a sniper shot a Canadian solider whose life was saved by the doctors of that forward surgical hospital. The Liberal government at that time kept everything quiet about the Balkans until many years after the conflict was over.

But it was not just the Balkans, I remember during my entire time as a soldier the military was constantly being cut back under the Liberal government. As citizens we should ensure any government that is in power properly equips and supports our military if we as a country are going to send our sons and daughters into a conflict zone. I along with many others do not want to ever witness the loss of any soldier because a government sent them overseas into a situation where they did not have the proper equipment and support. So I ask Justin as a citizen and a decorated soldier who served this country, if he is going to send troops overseas how can we as a nation know the Liberal government will not do what they did in the past with military cuts and guarantee our sons and daughters are going to be properly equipped and supported?​

Tom Hoppe MSC, MB, CD, MA -a veteran who has been involved in shaping veterans policy and transition programs for almost two decades and was twice decorated on one tour for bravery and leadership. Tom served as Chair for the Veterans Ombudsman Advisory Council and as National President of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. Tom has spoken about veterans issues on documentaries, radio, TV, and authored a book on leadership.

By Harold Leduc​ Veteran Watch continues to provide a summary of our policy report cards on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you. Today, Veteran Watch examines theNDP

Does the proposal fall inline with the spirit of parity of the recently re-affirmed social covenant? It does in part. In addition to their original platform the NDP updated their platform by announcing greater spending and review of veterans concerns. There is a commitment to treat all veterans as one, and move away from a for-profit medical insurance attitude (SISIP). The proposal commits to reopening VAC offices and reviewing areas of concern.The proposal fails to meet the spirit of the social covenant by assimilating the unique unlimited liability nature of military service with RCMP service. This is not supported in law and devalues both military and RCMP service and sacrifice.Does the proposed policy meet veterans and their families needs?There is a commitment to increase certain programs and review areas of concern. It is yet to be seen if the pledged $454 million over four years will be sufficient to meet veterans and their families needs. Opening access to long term care facilities appears to be a move towards parity with existing benefit available under the WWII Veterans Charter and other available benefits CAF veterans are denied access to. The devil is in the details.

The policy doesn’t indicate whether widows and children’s benefits will be restored to Pension Act levels.

Is a return to the Pension Act contemplated?No despite it being the most controversial part of the NVC. The policy commits to a re-establishment of life long pensions and an increase the disability award. The life long Pension Act benefit is a tax-free disability award as is the NVC’s lump sum. The increase referred to is an increase in the lump sum and the life long pension alluded to appears to be a collection of taxable benefits established for different purposes.Not returning to the Pension Act denies benefits for spouses and families.Does the proposal address the difficulties veterans have in accessing benefits?Somewhat, as the proposal addresses a change to VRAB. There is no mention of addressing the denial culture at the Department level.Does the proposal acknowledge current court actions against veterans?Yes, there is not mention on how this would be addressed.SummaryBased on the available information, the NDP Party’s policy is promising despite failing to address the most contentious part of the NVC. It does offer promise by moving beyond meeting veterans’ transition needs. Details are required to determine if the proposed dollar figures are sufficient. Major policy drawback is the assimilation of military and RCMP service and sacrifice.

NOTE: Colours fill the boxes next to each question. Green indicates a positive response that will likely meet the full needs of veterans. Yellow indicates a somewhat positive policy but one that fails to meet the full requirement. Red is a complete failure to meet the needs of veterans. Colours that fade from green to yellow indicate an initial positive response but one that may require more research or clarification. Colours that fade from yellow to red indicate some redeeming factors within policy but one that might end in failure.

The retirement dream can be shattered by disability. To protect ourselves, we buy financial products, such as Life Insurance, pensions, RRSP's & Long Term Disability Insurance, to name a few.

Pensions, like the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act pension, are a form of forced savings & insurance. It is a Defined Benefit plan where you are given the right after a set time period, 10 years for CF members, to a benefit payment based on a formula. The CFSA formula is the average salary over 5 years multiplied by 2% a year multiplied by the number of year's service (maximum 35 years).

There is a disablement provision in the CFSA where a disabled soldier can get his automatic right to his money when he has the unfortunate injury or illness that renders him too disabled to work.

Disability or disablement pensions, as the Brits call them, are an important safety net. Bear in mind they are limited. A CFSA disability pension, for example, would be about 20% of wages if you had 10 years in. While on that subject, 10 years is manifestly unfair.

A public servant needs 2 years to "vest" or be locked in. A Reservist also needs 2 years, a rare occurance where a Reservist has an advantage over a Regular Force member. RCMP members can, I think, get a pension after 2 years.

A recent case, IBM v Waterman, sheds some light on the possible motive for this 10 year vesting period plus a disturbing possibility that Canada might be saving pension money at the expense of a disabled member. The 10 year period gives 500% more chance (5x the 2 year PS pension) that a member will not vest.

The more nefarious possibility is mentioned in IBM v Waterman. The Supreme Court Justices stated there should be a public policy against encouraging employers to "get rid of" employees to save pension money! This seems like a real possibility for the CF, many members seem to get released JUST before they vest. Someone ought to investigate this as it is contrary to justice & public policy if there is "smoke where there is fire."

Another case, Sulz, sheds some light on several pension related issues.

1. Can pensions be deducted from tort damages (compensation, WCB or VAC are similar)?

2. What is the nature of pensions?

3. What does contributions mean to the benefit?

4. What effect did disability have on the pension?

Answers

1. No.

2. Pensions are assets akin to insurance, NOT income.

3. Contributions give you a legal entitlement to a benefit. To take it off would mean you paid a premium for nothing.

4. The disability caused a lowered pension as the disabled RCMP member would likely have contributed longer & received a higher RCMP pension.

Sulz serves disabled soldiers well as a precedent:

1. CPPD is allowed plus damages (or WCB/VAC).

2. CFSA pension is allowed plus damages (or WCB/VAC).

3. SISIP LTD is allowed plus damages (or WCB/VAC) as you contributed to the pool of insurance money.

In fact, the only deduction for the Sulz case from her $900,000 damages was the VAC pension. A curious result given the Dennis Manuge case, to be sure. It would seem to me that the Pension Act s. 30(1) would deny the deduction. The judge could have stated that Parliament intended for disabled veteran's to get their award, not to reward the wrongdoer. Sulz sued over harassment, not normal service injury. Taking her VAC pension off her damages seems a GRAVE INJUSTICE!

Monday to Thursday (Oct. 5-9, 2015) Veteran Watch will provide a summary of our policy report card on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you. Today, Veteran Watch examines the Liberal Party

Does the proposal fall inline with the spirit of parity of the recently re-affirmed social covenant? It does in part. The policy speaks to parity among CAF veterans but not with all veterans despite the stated “one veteran, one standard” language. There is a commitment to be a world leader in treating veterans, re-opening offices and providing better services by hiring more case managers.

The pre-amble doesn’t mention all fatalities listed in the Seventh Book of Remembrance.

The wording of the proposal is not clear when addressing increasing veterans survivor pension amount and in addressing a re-establishment of life long pensions and increasing disability awards.

Does the proposed policy meet veterans and their families needs?There is a commitment to increase certain programs and benefits however no studies or consultation results are provided to establish a need or if the dollar figures are sufficient. The proposed programs seem to enhance NVC programs but not in the standard set by the WWII Veterans Charter and other available benefits CAF veterans are denied access to, however sufficient details are not provided to determine to what extent.

The policy doesn’t indicate that the increase in survivor benefits is only available to spouses of veterans collecting Pension Act disability benefits, not the lump sum under the NVC.

Is a return to the Pension Act contemplated?No despite it being the most controversial part of the NVC. The policy commits to a re-establishment of life long pensions and an increase the disability award. The life long Pension Act benefit is a tax-free disability award as is the NVC’s lump sum. The increase referred to is an increase in the lump sum and the life long pension alluded to appears to be a collection of taxable benefits.

Not returning to the Pension Act denies benefits for spouses and families.

Does the proposal address the difficulties veterans have in accessing benefits?No, there is no mention of addressing the denial culture at VAC and VRAB.

Does the proposal acknowledge current court actions against veterans?Yes, there is not mention on how this would be addressed.

SummaryBased on the available information, the Liberal Party’s policy fails to address the most contentious part of the NVC. It does offer promise by enhancing NVC benefits and programs. Details are required to determine if the proposed dollar figures meet veterans and their families needs. Major drawbacks are the policy’s unclear language and narrow focus.

NOTE: Colours fill the boxes next to each question. Green indicates a positive response that will likely meet the full needs of veterans. Yellow indicates a somewhat positive policy but one that fails to meet the full requirement. Red is a complete failure to meet the needs of veterans. Colours that fade from green to yellow indicate an initial positive response but one that may require more research or clarification. Colours that fade from yellow to red indicate some redeeming factors within policy but one that might end in failure.

​When someone resorts to trying to take property "through the back door," it means that they want to do something shady.

Imagine someone stealing your furniture, a Break & Enter. To go out the front door would seem foolhardy. As an analogy, imagine someone trying to defraud you. We don't have to imagine though. Let us examine a real world example of "back door" accounting.

The Service Income Support Insurance Plan (SISIP) is a CF member group insurance set up in 1969. It offsets everything it can imagine to ensure a high profit.

In 1976, as the CF & VAC recognized that the Pension Act pension alone was not enough to live on, the plan was amended to allow for "service injuries." A rare occurance, as most insurance has a "war exclusion" clause so as not to go bankrupt after a war.

However, someone decided to use the "back door" to eliminate this benefit. They put an offset clause in policy 901102 where the value of the VAC pension was deducted from the money sent to the disabled veteran. In other words, the pension was taken, indirectly!

This is kinda important. The pension was in recognition for injury in service to Canada. Canada placed a bar to offset in the Act, s. 30(1). Therefore, SISIP could not legally send VAC a bill to take the pension!

This was not stated expressly in the Manuge class action but is a key point. All federal funds contain this prohibition from assignment or attachment. In fact, the pension also has a back-up in Financial Administration Act s. 67 which prohibits interception of "Crown debts." When money is owed to a disabled vet, it is obviously a "Crown debt."

Manulife, "commercial partner" of the CF was taking the disabled vet's compensation for economic & non-economic loss through the "back door!" Two cases come to mind: Ultramar & Beattie. In both of these Federal Court cases, indirect attachment or assignmebt was pronounced unlawful.

The reason for this is simple. It is illegal. Parliament passes laws for a reason. We are supposed to obey those laws, we have a social contract to obey the "Rule of Law." This also applies to government.

Monday to Thursday (Oct. 5-9, 2015) Veteran Watch will provide a summary of our policy report card on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you. Today, Veteran Watch examines the Green PartyDoes the proposal fall inline with the spirit of parity of the recently re-affirmed social covenant? It does in part. There is a commitment to treat all veterans as one, and move away from a for-profit medical insurance attitude (SISIP). The proposal commits to reopening VAC officesThe proposal fails to meet the spirit of the social covenant by assimilating the unique unlimited liability nature of military service with RCMP service. This is not supported in law and devalues both military and RCMP service and sacrifice.Does the proposed policy meet veterans and their families needs?There is a commitment to rewrite the NVC to meet veterans’ needs however details are not available to determine to what extent.Is a return to the Pension Act contemplated?Yes, there is a commitment to re-establishing the Pension Act. Does the proposal address the difficulties veterans have in accessing benefits?Yes, the proposal emphasizes the benefit of the doubt and speaks to resolving addressing the denial culture at both VAC and VRAB.Does the proposal acknowledge current court actions?Yes, there is a commitment to support the class action lawsuits currently put forward by Miller Thompson, supported by Equitas and to end the SISIP claw back.SummaryBased on the available information, the Green Party’s policy offers promise in addressing the most controversial concerns of veterans and their families by the return of the Pension Act. The major drawback of the policy is including the RCMP in a social covenant established uniquely for military veterans and their families. RCMP veterans would be best served by a separate Green Party policy.

NOTE: Colours fill the boxes next to each question. Green indicates a positive response that will likely meet the full needs of veterans. Yellow indicates a somewhat positive policy but one that fails to meet the full requirement. Red is a complete failure to meet the needs of veterans. Colours that fade from green to yellow indicate an initial positive response but one that may require more research or clarification. Colours that fade from yellow to red indicate some redeeming factors within policy but one that might end in failure.

​Monday to Thursday (Oct. 5-9, 2015) Veteran Watch will provide a summary of our policy report card on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you.

Setting the Record StraightThere is far too much misinformation circulating by government, political parties and veterans’ advocates alike causing more confusion that clarity. With the class action lawsuit in abeyance, veterans’ and their family’s abysmal treatment an election issue the competing political parties are doing what they can to win veterans votes. An analysis of the parties platforms is important to help veterans and their families see whether the election promises meet political of veterans needs. The following should help clarify misinformation and set the groundwork for the analysis.

Veterans Ombudsman’s 2013 Actuary AnalysisIn the June 2013 actuarial analysis entitled “Improving the New Veterans Charter” the Veterans Ombudsman (VO) compares the suite of NVC benefits with the Pension Act (PA) benefits. This leaves readers to believe that both the PA and NVC were established for the same purpose. This comparison is simply not credible because the lump sum of Part III of the NVC was developed to replace the PA life long pension for veterans and their families.

The figures in the NVC Actuary Analysis are incomplete skewing the report’s outcome because they do not contain numbers that reflect all the gateways to access the NVC’s suite of benefits which are through a:

disability award under the Pension Act;

disability award under Part III of the NVC;

re-establishment need.

The PA, for the disabled, has historically been used as a cornerstone to a suite of benefits available to all veterans. Therefore the only reasonable, legal comparisons that can be made are:

the PA to Part III of the NVC;

the NVC with the WWII Veterans Charter.

Assimilating RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) service and benefits Since 2004 Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has included representatives of the RCMP in committees making decisions on benefits for military veterans and their families. The practice is highly unusual given the legislated differences between the two organizations. For example, it is well established in law that Department of Veterans Affairs exists to provide care and treatment to military veterans because the unlimited liability nature of their service disqualifies them from the Labour Code protection and workers compensation benefits. The RCMP on the other hand, are protected by the Labour Code, have the right to organize and have a right not to work at risk. Military veterans’ benefits are paid for by VAC while the RCMP’s, including life long disability pensions and treatment are paid for by the RCMP. Through their professional organization under authority of the Labour Code, the RCMP seem best resourced to advocate for their own benefits. Despite this, most political parties say that both the RCMP and CAF serve under unlimited liability.

In an ongoing class action lawsuit on the NVC, lawyers for the plaintiffs established that the unlimited liability of military service makes members of the military unique from any other occupation in Canada including police, firefighters, etc. The military is also the only occupation that plans for casualties, including fatalities in operations and training.

At a 2015 town hall meeting the VO explained that the government pays the RCMP a large sum of money to pay VAC for adjudicating their claims. The VO then told the audience that for that reason alone, he is working towards having government treat CAF and RCMP veterans the same. This act ignores the military’s long established unique unlimited liability terms of service, military veterans special status in society, RCMP legislation, the Labour Code and a Supreme Court decision in favour of the RCMP.

By unanimous vote, all party Members of Parliament of the 41st Parliament government re-affirmed the social covenant with military veterans and their families, a covenant first made in 1917 by Prime Minister Robert Borden. Benefits through VAC are a large part of that covenant.

Although both occupations have inherent risk, the practice of assimilating RCMP and CAF service to determine CAF veteran’s benefits is not supported by legislation or the social covenant. VAC did try to sell the NVC to the RCMP, Corrections Canada and other para military organizations but they passed because the NVC’s programs and benefits would have to be paid through their individual operational budgets.

Demystifying the NVCWhen the NVC was brought into force in 2006, it ended 60 years of government negligence in providing CF veterans with re-habilitation, retraining and re-establishment benefits. Although the NVC’s programs fall short of the WWII Veterans Charter benefits and programs it is a start. The WWII Veterans Charter provided benefits for all active service veterans providing additional benefits for the disabled through the Pension Act under the principle of “Opportunity with Security.” The NVC was also established under the mantra of “Opportunity with Security” but falls short.

The government and VO have convinced veterans’ organizations (who should know better) and the unsuspecting public alike, that the lump sum disability award of the NVC’s Part III cannot be separated from the other benefits in the NVC. Not only is this claim ridiculous but it lacks credibility because as stated above, the Pension Act disability benefit is a gateway benefit to the NVC benefits.

What government, VAC and the informed veterans organizations know is that CF active service veterans qualify for the benefits and programs of the WWII Veterans Charter just like the who served in the Korean War did. They were aware on this when they created the NVC and brought the lump sum in to replace the Pension Act life long disability benefit to pay for the NVC’s benefits. By replacing the PA with the lump sum they also knowingly removed benefits for spouses and family members that are not duplicated in the NVC.

All but one political party are firm in their position that they will not return to the Pension Act if they form government because they claim that it is too expensive. This claim is not credible for the simple fact that Treasury Board’s policy, in keeping with the social covenant, is that regardless of how many veterans qualify for benefits they will have the money.

The NVC was also developed to replace the benefits of the SISIP program and is the reason those programs are duplicated in legislation, falling short of the full needs of veterans and their families. Another reason why the NVC’s benefits fall short is because they are based on government’s need with a financial cap rather than the actual needs of veterans based on VAC’s best practices since WWII.

Policy AnalysisAn analysis of the each political parties Veterans benefit platform will be conducted by comparing the policies ensuring equity with the WWII Veterans Charter and existing programs available to other military active service veterans as partially listed below.

Given that the Minster blocks dissenting voices from his social media feeds it is no wonder he hears 99% approval. But here is the reality: Widows have to fight the government for benefits and services. In thisGlobal National Newsclip, you can hear how Dawn Collins and Natasha Mohr are wrestling with VAC. Our own Harold Leduc has lent a hand in advocacy. The Minister’s Office has since been in contact with the widows. Lets hope for a positive outcome.